BI: Obama got “destroyed” at the Supreme Court this year, huh?

posted at 1:21 pm on July 1, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

After a very bad Supreme Court session, a reporter asked new White House press secretary Josh Earnest how the “constitutional scholar” was handling the latest series of defeats and rebukes from the court. The question itself tweaked Barack Obama’s track record on constitutional issues, but either Earnest didn’t catch the nuance or decided to double down on Obama’s claims of constitutional-law expertise:

“As the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you,” Earnest replied, “is that he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment, in terms of his own legal analysis.” Maybe he should spend more time reading the Constitution first. As Business Insider’s Brett LoGiurato concludes, Obama has been on a pretty bad losing streak for much of his presidency, apart from the surprise win on ObamaCare:

There’s been little solace for Obama this Supreme Court term. In addition to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration and the causes it has supported have experienced a handful of high-profile setbacks before the high court.

But other legal experts and the president’s political opponents have taken notice. Since January 2012, the Obama administration has suffered at least 12 unanimous defeats in cases it argued (not counting cases in which it filed an amicus brief), according to the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

The January 2012 case also rebuked the administration on religious liberty. In a 9-0 decision, the court reversed an attempt by the the Obama administration to pursue equal-employment enforcement on a Lutheran school that had terminated a teacher for not having a “calling” for teaching faith. The woman sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and claimed discrimination, and the Obama administration argued that the long-held doctrine of “ministerial exception” to such laws should be set aside. Such a ruling would have allowed the government to force churches to accept teachers and ministers of its choosing rather than the churches’ choosing.

Michael McConnell wrote at the time:

… the Obama Justice Department has now asked the court to disavow the ministerial exception altogether. This would mean that, in every future case, a court — and not the church — would decide whether the church’s reasons for firing or not hiring a minister were good enough …

James Madison famously declared that the civil magistrate is not a “competent Judge of Religious truth.” Yet every discrimination claim about the hiring of a minister necessarily comes down to the question of whether the church had a bona fide religious reason for its decision. That places the courts squarely in the business of adjudicating the validity of a church’s claims about its own religious practice.

In a ver real sense, this is exactly the same issue we have before us in both the HHS contraception mandate and the so-called “accommodation.” Both have the same arrogance at their heart — that the federal government know more about religious doctrine than the church, and that it has the role to decide which doctrines are valid or not.

The constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office didn’t learn much from Hosanna-Tabor, did he?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

“As the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you,”

I’m sick of hearing this. Can anyone point me to a book or article that this fraud has penned or a case he has argued before a court that lends any weight whatsoever to the notion that he is some sort of constitutional expert?

“As the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you,” Earnest replied, “is that he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment, in terms of his own legal analysis.”

LOL… Constitutional lawyer? I am 100% certain that Obama cannot does not know half of the amendments… This most incompetent fool belongs in one place only, inner city Chicago agitating the welfare queens… Him being elected President mostly by the parasite class is the biggest insult to our nation…

I’m sick of hearing this. Can anyone point me to a book or article that this fraud has penned or a case he has argued before a court that lends any weight whatsoever to the notion that he is some sort of constitutional expert?

dreadnought62 on July 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM

There is none… Like everything “positive” said about him, it is a lie, a huge lie… Whatever “positive” thing or trait said about him the exact opposite is 100% true… This man is the biggest fraud in the history of the Republic…

Barack Obama is a petulant, thin-skinned, narcissistic, mendacious, and arrogant sociopath who holds the Constitution, as written, in complete and utter contempt because it inhibits his efforts to expand fascism.

He is not a ‘constitutional scholar’. He’s not even a constitutional ‘expert’.

I, like Obama, was once an adjunct professor teaching a con law class (albeit, not at remotely as prestigious a school). Of course, being an adjunct is not remotely the same as being a full professor, but the point is if being an adjunct teaching a con law course makes one a “constitutional law scholar”, than I am a “constitutional law scholar”, add to that my actual experience practicing law – of which Obama has none – and I am published, which Obama is not, means I am a higher order constitutional scholar than Obama.

My point here isn’t really that I am an expert, but that Obama has incredibly limited legal understanding. He never practiced, he never published, he never did anything to prove any particular acumen or intellectual heft. I’ve never heard him say anything insightful regarding any constitutional analysis (we can’t depend on any Obama writings regarding the same, because none exist). And, his decisions as POTUS don’t show any true understanding of the constitution.

the idea that anyone out there believes Obama is anything but a second-rate mind is astounding.

Exactly. Neither one is authorized to practice law and would have to go back to catch up with continuing education and examinations before being allowed to practice.
They are not now ‘lawyers’. As far as “constitutional” he was best a constitutional lecturer. Never a professor

In the form of government Obama prefers for America (and the one that plays a part in his efforts to fundamentally transform this nation of ours), there is only one ultimate source of authority, namely government. All other sources of authority, including those stemming from religious faith, must take a lower status, if not be eradicated altogether.

After a very bad Supreme Court session, a reporter asked new White House press secretary Josh Earnest how the “constitutional scholar” was handling the latest series of defeats and rebukes from the court.

“As the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you,” Earnest replied, “is that he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment, in terms of his own legal analysis.”

The whole premise is a non-sequitur. Obama has to read the newspaper or watch the news before he will know how to respond. Presuming, of course, that he doesn’t need to form an investigation team first to get to the bottom of the matter and report back to him with recommendations, say… 12 to 18 months from now.

I, like Obama, was once an adjunct professor teaching a con law class (albeit, not at remotely as prestigious a school). Of course, being an adjunct is not remotely the same as being a full professor, but the point is if being an adjunct teaching a con law course makes one a “constitutional law scholar”, than I am a “constitutional law scholar”, add to that my actual experience practicing law – of which Obama has none – and I am published, which Obama is not, means I am a higher order constitutional scholar than Obama.

My point here isn’t really that I am an expert, but that Obama has incredibly limited legal understanding. He never practiced, he never published, he never did anything to prove any particular acumen or intellectual heft. I’ve never heard him say anything insightful regarding any constitutional analysis (we can’t depend on any Obama writings regarding the same, because none exist). And, his decisions as POTUS don’t show any true understanding of the constitution.

the idea that anyone out there believes Obama is anything but a second-rate mind is astounding.

I think our frame of reference is completely wrong on all of this analysis. We are assuming that he likes and wants to follow our system of government. If he did, then he would be chastened by a SCOTUS rebuke. If he has no respect for SCOTUS (other than the power that the majority of the country grants it by following its rulings), then what difference does a slap-down by an entity he deems irrelevant make?

the idea that anyone out there believes Obama is anything but a second-rate mind is astounding.

Monkeytoe on July 1, 2014 at 1:38 PM

He’s not even that. And it’s not even a matter of being on different sides of the political aisle. I read a biography of Lenin recently. I came with the conclusion that he was a dangerous POS, but there was no doubting the man’s intelligence and tenacity.

Can anyone point to a single original utterance from this man’s mouth? A single obstacle hurtled without the benefience of the White Man’s affirmative action? A sole example of sacrifice made on behalf of others?

That this creature ever was elected to any level of public office much less the highest says nothing about him, but speaks volumes of the civilizational rot that has now set in our republic.

He and his filthy family go on vacations that cost the taxpayers millions. I seriously doubt that the rat-eared wonder, the First Yeti, or their worthless brats even know what a Holiday Inn looks like.

He was only a part-time constitutional law lecturer. He was never a constitutional law scholar. A scholar is someone who publishes his ideas in peer-reviewed legal journals, something Obama never did, or who distinguishes himself in the practice of law by advancing brilliant new legal theories, something Obama never did.

Obama was nothing more than an Aff*rmative Act*on hire at Chicago; somebody to boost the law school’s “diversity” statistics. Had he been white, he never even would have been considered for the teaching position (much like the U.S. presidency, as the late Geraldine Ferraro pointed out).

The population of Dear Leader Pharoah Barack Hussein Louie Benito Hugo Issuzu Obama’s developing fundamentally transformed Democratik People’s Republik of Amerika can be roughly divided into three tiers, and ones place in these tiers is called Obama songbun (based on North Korea’s songbun system). An individual’s Obama songbun is based on ones position at the time of Obama’s ascendancy from questionable circumstances of birth to presidential occupation. Kenyan Obama himself, his K-lingon wife and ruling party members, largely comprised of the capos of Rahm, Axelrod, Reid, Pelosi and the Kennedy family and their sub-capos, are the main elite. People who helped to bankrupt the nation while lining their own pockets are at the next level in the songbun hierarchy and often have high committee positions in congress or are appointed to cabinet and czar positions and other high offices. The lowest Obama songbun group is comprised of an as yet to be determined number of distinct classes, each with lower Obama songbun then the next. Tea Party members, conservative blog writers, conservative talk show hosts, Christians, and people who still believe in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of individual rights and free enterprise or in the soon to be completely outdated U.S. Constitution and it’s guarantee of the right of free speech and assembly have the lowest Obama songbun, and consequentially will occupy a role analogous to India’s untouchables

The January 2012 case also rebuked the administration on religious liberty. In a 9-0 decision, the court reversed an attempt by the the Obama administration to pursue equal-employment enforcement on a Lutheran school that had terminated a teacher for not having a “calling” for teaching faith. The woman sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and claimed discrimination, and the Obama administration argued that the long-held doctrine of “ministerial exception” to such laws should be set aside. Such a ruling would have allowed the government to force churches to accept teachers and ministers of its choosing rather than the churches’ choosing.

Obama doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state, only mosque and state in America. But Obama believes mosque and state shouldn’t be separated in Iraq.

I’m sick of hearing this. Can anyone point me to a book or article that this fraud has penned or a case he has argued before a court that lends any weight whatsoever to the notion that he is some sort of constitutional expert?

dreadnought62 on July 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM

The ONLY thing that the former President of the HLR ever wrote (and its subject should come as a surprise to exactly no one):

TORT LAW – PRENATAL INJURIES – SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES

103 Harv. L. Rev. 823 (1989 – 1990)

It was an UNSIGNED ‘Note’ and his only article, both of which are very uncommon for the President.

What bar had he passed, and maintained his license…he can’t practice law, he could teach it, but not practice it.

He is a person who took law courses in college, he passed the bar—preliminarily, but the results were in question and rather than respond to allegations, he relinquished his license, which was a temporary license (less than a year even).

Isn’t a “lawyer” one who actually is licensed to practice? Otherwise he is a someone with a law degree…

You are not a doctor, unless you actually pass the tests and become one…just taking the classes does not make you a doctor, or a doctor of jurisprudence.

“So, your team lost by 10-0 in the World Cup: what is your impression?”
“Well, as EXPERTS in soccer, we want to closely review the score and the video before we characterize this as some sort of ‘lopsided loss’ by our team…”
Team Obama. We’re Never Wrong(TM)

He’s not even that. And it’s not even a matter of being on different sides of the political aisle. I read a biography of Lenin recently. I came with the conclusion that he was a dangerous POS, but there was no doubting the man’s intelligence and tenacity.

Can anyone point to a single original utterance from this man’s mouth? A single obstacle hurtled without the benefience of the White Man’s affirmative action? A sole example of sacrifice made on behalf of others?

That this creature ever was elected to any level of public office much less the highest says nothing about him, but speaks volumes of the civilizational rot that has now set in our republic.

dreadnought62 on July 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM

I’ve been saying this for years to anyone who claims Obama is “super intelligent” – point to any evidence aside from the fact that he got into and graduated from Harvard Law School (I know plenty of people who graduated from law school who are not that bright).

He has no writings proving intelligence. No accomplishments outside of getting elected. He has said nothing in any speech that reveals a deep intellect. He has pursued our announced no policy that is anything but drawn from decades-old liberal clichés. He did nothing as a State Senator or U.S. Senator revealing any intellectual depth. His administration has proven ignorant and incompetent.

there is nothing to point to that could be used as evidence of any superior intellect on the part of Obama.

I have argued for a long time the same thing about this “great speaker”‘s speeches. there is not one memorable line from any Obama speech. Not one interesting turn-of-phrase. Not one new or interesting idea. Not one courageous utterance.

there is nothing, in or out of context, that demonstrates that he has any great speech-giving ability.

when people say he is a “great speaker” they mean that he has a decent voice, doesn’t mis-speak (when using a teleprompter), doesn’t have an accent, and has good cadence.

they don’t – they can’t – mean his speeches are great in terms of substance. In terms of substance, Obama never really says anything.

I am convinced that if Obama were white, he would a) not have been accepted at Harvard and b) would be, at best, a middle=management guy at some company. There simply is no there there. there is nothing of substance to him. He can regurgitate what the left wants to hear at times, but that is it.

I’ve put this challenge out many times to a lefty – quick, within the next 20 minutes, cite something inspiring, memorable, beautiful or insightful from an Obama speech. I have never had anyone take up the challenge. And- giving 20 minutes gives people time to do a search on the internet to find something. Even with that – no takers.

I’ve been saying this for years to anyone who claims Obama is “super intelligent” – point to any evidence aside from the fact that he got into and graduated from Harvard Law School (I know plenty of people who graduated from law school who are not that bright).

And to follow-up on this point, if simply getting in and graduating from a prestigious school proves great intellect, than everyone claiming Obama is a super-genius must also concede that Bush was a super-genius (MBA, Yale).

In a ver[sic] real sense, this is exactly the same issue we have before us in both the HHS contraception mandate and the so-called “accommodation.” Both have the same arrogance at their heart — that the federal government know more about religious doctrine than the church, and that it has the role to decide which doctrines are valid or not.

They hate the First Amendment, all of it; nearly as much as they hate the 2nd. Remember this when they cry separation over prayers; they don’t want separation of church and state – they want church subservient to the will of the state.

They hate the First Amendment, all of it; nearly as much as they hate the 2nd. Remember this when they cry separation over prayers; they don’t want separation of church and state – they want church subservient to the will of the state.

Buck Farky on July 1, 2014 at 3:23 PM

they also don’t want freedom of speech – they want freedom of their speech and suppression of all other speech.

Maybe you all can quit complaining about “activist” judges now? Never before have people been more miserable in victory.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM

You don’t get it and you never will.

You assume “activist” jurisprudence is synonymous with disagreement with a certain viewpoint. In your world all jurisprudence is therefore activist to *somebody.* Which is ridiculous but then so are you.

Actual activist jurisprudence is that which rejects Constitutional foundations and grants powers to government that are either not enumerated or, even worse, in cases like this were they to go the progressive way contraindicated within the very text itself.

The Constitution is a document limiting government, not empowering it. Activist jurisprudence seeks to destroy those limitations and grant new, grotesque powers over the people.

Now I sit by my window
And I watch the cars go by
I fear I’ll do some damage
One fine day
But I would not be convicted
By a jury of my peers
Still PRESIDENT after all these years
Oh, still PRESIDENT
Still PRESIDENT
Still PRESIDENT all these years

Maybe you all can quit complaining about “activist” judges now? Never before have people been more miserable in victory.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Activist judges??? lolz

Do you realise that it was Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and almost every Democrat in Congress that gave us the RFRA? It passed the Democrat-controlled House on a voice vote and passed the Senate 97-3 with only 2 of the dissenters being Democrats.

Do you even know why the RFRA even became a gleam in two of its fathers’ (Look, Ma! I’ve got two dads!!!) – Schumer and Kennedy – eyes?

It was Scalia’s opinion for the majority in Employment Division v Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that the law, when applied to the population at large, could not sustain carve-outs for religious reasons. And, this pizzed off a whole lot of people, especially those on the Left.

Why?

Because Manifest Destiny, racism, and genocide against Native Americans or something. Oh, and drugs!!!

You see, Mr Smith was a Native American, who smoked peyote as part of his ‘religious’ rites, but he wanted unemployment insurance and the State of Oregon had a law that prohibited the payment of such benefits to individuals that smoked the illegal drug. Well, we couldn’t have that. I mean, shit, we gave them smallpox and took their land. Soooo, Democrats, especially, led the charge up the Religious Freedom Restoration Act hill.

Later, the Supreme Court ruled that a city in Florida couldn’t prohibit the ritual slaughter of chickens by practitioners of Santería. See: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).

And, the Court, again relying on RFRA, held that the Federal government failed to prove a compelling interest (strict scrutiny applies in cases that infringe upon Constitutional rights) in seizing the Schedule I tea that was used for sacraments by members of a New Mexican branch of the Brazilian church União do Vegetal. See: Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).

Instead of this being a decision by ‘activist judges,’ the Court was actually relying on legislation overwhelmingly supported and driven by Democrats. If Democrats hadn’t pushed for the RFRA and let Scalia’s opinion in Smith stand, the Obama administration may very well have prevailed yesterday.

So, tell us again, liveenslavedthendie, just exactly who the ‘activists’ were?

Call it Scalia’s Scimitar or something. He warned you. You didn’t listen. And, yesterday, he used Democrats’ own law to hack off their heads.

Amusing really.

Mr Progressive, I understand that you know your hoist, but please allow me to introduce you to Monsieur Petard.

Maybe you all can quit complaining about “activist” judges now? Never before have people been more miserable in victory.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Activist judge means one who reads things into the constitution that aren’t there, gives the federal gov’t power not granted by the Constitution, or usurps power for the court it should not have.

To give you an example that you would likely agree with – I believe the judge deciding that teach tenure was “unconstitutional” in CA was an activist judge. While I think teacher tenure is absurd and loved the decision along those lines, I don’t think it is the court’s place to decide whether or not teacher’s get tenure – that is a legislative function. And, claiming that this court did not like the difference in outcomes between city schools and suburban schools and decided (based on really shady pseudo science) that teacher tenure was the problem and therefore he would order it stopped, is activist.

It is activist because the court is taking a legislative function – determining what minimum level of performance schools should have and how to achieve it – and abrogated that power onto himself, with no basis in law.

this is similar to a Supreme Court justice deciding that abortion is a constitutional right based on penumbras and emanations. Or, a supreme court justice reading the 2nd amendment and saying “yep, that clearly doesn’t mean individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.”

It is not simply an argument against decisions we don’t like. There are plenty of court decisions I disagree with but see the basis in law for the decision.

it is an argument against courts making decisions they have no right to make, where the basis for the decision is wholly invented out of cloth and not found within the text of the constitution or within the text of a statute.

That is an activist judge. It is almost always a judge that is engaging in outcome based judicial decision – i.e., I want outcome “x” and now have to rationalize my way there with no regard to law.

Liberals love this type of legal analysis, because it allows courts to ignore the meaning of the constitution and instead “interpret” the constitution to mean whatever the hell the left wants it to mean this decade.

But, that is not to say that no judges on the right engage in judicial activism, it just happens far less often.

the job of the court is not to “dispense justice” or “ensure fairness”. The job of the court is to apply the law.

I didn’t expect it to be so grim in here. You won! Is nothing good enough for you people?

libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM

.
The fight ain’t over . . . . . one battle won … next.

listens2glenn on July 1, 2014 at 4:06 PM
.

Or maybe, just maybe, you’re disconcerted about the reaction in the public. This isn’t really being celebrated…anyway.

libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM

.
Most people don’t view this ruling as affecting them personally, one way or the other.

That’s a real damn shame, too. American apathy on display.

listens2glenn on July 1, 2014 at 4:06 PM
.

Maybe people are starting to put two and two together re your intense concern about the implementation of Sharia Law, and American religious leaders desire to make Christianity a condition of employment. Admit it, you know you want it. And you’re closer to it. So celebrate. You won.

libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM

.
If we didn’t have a Christian version of “Sharia Law” in this country, anytime between it’s founding and the SCOTUS decision(s) abolishing ‘public recognition of God’, then what the HANG makes you think we’re trying to impose a Christian version of “Sharia Law” today ?

The only way this makes any sense is IF … you do believe we had some Christian version of “Sharia Law”, up until the SCOTUS decision(s) abolishing ‘public recognition of God’.

Maybe you all can quit complaining about “activist” judges now? Never before have people been more miserable in victory.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM

LOL! The only “judicial activism” in yesterday’s ruling was that the 4 Activist Justices that you admire voted against the decision, thus claiming that the legislation that their own Party (and yours) enacted in 1993 was no longer convenient to them politically.